Report: Georgia deputies conduct warrantless search of high school, pat down 900 students

[Dave70968]

Not challenging the Constitution,just stating what they used as the reasoning. It's on the Worth County website.

Ah; I thought you were approving of that excuse. My apologies.

 

[MacFromOK]

Underage children do not have the same rights as adults. Never have, probably (and hopefully) never will.

Otherwise (for example), you would be guilty of "involuntary imprisonment" by confining your child to his/her room. Not to mention being guilty of "assault" "battery" by applying corporal punishment to said child.

 

[caojyn]

Underage children do not have the same rights as adults. Never have, probably (and hopefully) never will.

In New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Justice White wrote: "In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment." The case upheld the search of a purse while on public school property based upon reasonable suspicion, indicating there is a balancing between the student's legitimate expectation of privacy and the public school's interest.
.

 

[caojyn]

If law enforcement comes to a minor’s school and asks to speak with the student, it will be up to the teachers and/or principal to determine whether to allow the police to pull the student out of class or search their locker. The school will determine if there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. A locker is generally not considered personal property belonging to the student, but is school property so police do not need students’ permission, only the school’s to search lockers. Access without a student’s permission is generally only granted in special circumstances.

The rules on searching students are not as strict as those for the search of an adult. A school administrator or police officer needs only to suspect that a student may be partaking in illegal activities on school premises in order to search their person or locker. No warrant is necessary. In addition, because the lockers are school property, school officials and teachers can also search them at random and without warning. Even when a warrant is needed, it would be very easy for a police officer to obtain one if it meant investigated a potential harm to other students by one student.

Schools can also legally take random drug tests from students. This is typically done when placing students in athletics or extra curricular activities. A student can refuse to take the test but this may be grounds for refusal to admit that student to a team or group.

You are correct that no warrant is needed, just reasonable suspicion
Is searching 900 students reasonable?
And the school (In loco parentis) supposedly didn't give consent
Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/juvenile_law/talk_police.htm#ixzz4fUqmY9lG

 

[Dave70968]

Underage children do not have the same rights as adults. Never have, probably (and hopefully) never will.

Otherwise (for example), you would be guilty of "involuntary imprisonment" by confining your child to his/her room. Not to mention being guilty of "assault" by applying corporal punishment to said child.

"Not the same rights" is not the same as "no rights." Suspicion of "somebody" having drugs does not justify a blanket physical search of all 900 students in the school (see caojyn's post above).

Also, it would be battery, not assault.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I suspect if they recovered any evidence (from a pat down only; no dog alert), the almost certain motion to suppress would be successful.

While there is a reduced expectation of privacy in a school, there has to be at least some reasonable suspicion (see Caojyn's post). That reasonable suspicion needs to be articulated to a particular kid.

Dogs sniff of the halls? Fine. Dog hits on kid, search that kid? Also fine. Dog hits on a locker, search the particular kid associated with that locker? Probably also fine.

Pat down every single kid, just because? Even I can't see that.

 

[Dave70968]

And don't forget that this was the second such sweep in a month (the previous one having been conducted by the local PD). Reasonable?

 

[MacFromOK]

Also, it would be battery, not assault.

My bad, I stand corrected (am not a lawyer).

And I never said they had no rights... but my point still stands. They don't have the same rights that adults do under the constitution.

 

[Glocktogo]

My bad, I stand corrected (am not a lawyer).

And I never said they had no rights... but my point still stands. They don't have the same rights that adults do under the constitution.

Your point while correct, is not applicable in this case. No reasonable person would ever consider a physical search of every kid in school, because a handful might have drugs to be appropriate or allowable by law. This is a massive abuse of authority.

 

[mr ed]

Since this story is from WAPO. Just how true and accurate do you think it is? Or do you take everything the Washington Post prints as gospel?